The naming is making it less readable, auto doesn't improve that

Nope, becouse I know what auto means, becouse we have good naming

Nope, becouse I know what auto means, becouse we have good naming

Oh, you asked me, which name I use for a function. Right now, I am working with function shared_ptr<fucking_rabbit_very_fast_random_move_class> next_step()

It happens not often though

this name is about 1.5 lines on my screen(in tg). If I add constructor, that will be 5-6 lines. and You havent to navigate on the screen while reading the code

Yes. By looking at auto var=next_step(); you know that it is returning a shared pointer? Amazing 😁

Long names are as unreadable as meaningless names

Yeah, I know what next_step() returns

I read only first word, becouse there is no other fucking_*😂

Yes, and your colleagues using your code too. And you all remember that 6 months ago somebody thought of changing the return type. As I said, I envy your working environment

If tests don't pass, you shouldn't have changed anything to begin with

If you have naming that takes more than one line, you have a naming problem, regardless of what you read

We mentioned that before. Tests don't cover everything

If they exist at all

They should cover almost everything that can fail

You said it. They should. They normally don't

In serious projects, tests are always a must

And tests never cover 100% of the cases

And tests never cover 100% of the cases

You would be surprised

But, you try to cover everything

I'm surprised when projects don't have them

Maybe I have more experience, because I'm not

I would say good tests have a coverage of all lines of code AND all the bug cases you already resolved or have been able to reproduce

If those projects where the didn't test are meant to be serious, then you should question the professionality of that team

All lines of code? Call me if you find a company where that ever happens

Every single line?

TDD is a fairly recent trend

Well, I had to work a lot to make those tests happen

And the code won't be long, because I have serious doubts that it can be achieved in a code that is several tens or even hundreds of thousands of lines

And the code won't be long, because I have serious doubts that it can be achieved in a code that is several tens or even hundreds of thousands of lines

So you have like 20 to 100 more lines of test code than production code

So you have like 20 to 100 more lines of test code than production code

No, about 50% of prod code as test code

I don't aim for full unit test, I aim for every line covered and every bug case covered

Then sorry, but you aren't testing every line. You can't just have an average of 2 lines of test per production code

I'm sorry, but you don't achieve that with two lines of test code

I don't think he's being literal tbh

That's not "covering every line". You have no idea whether a class works or not. Two errors may make a right output

I know I explore every path of every function, error cases included, as well as reported bug cases and performance sensitive parts

No you don't explore every path of every function. That's just only possible with the simplest functions. And functional programming don't go to the level of testing functions/methods. That's unit testing

No you don't explore every path of every function. That's just only possible with the simplest functions. And functional programming don't go to the level of testing functions/methods. That's unit testing

Functional testing =/= Functional programming It means testing every feature of the software (functionalities)

I know it. But you functional testing doesn't test every path (meaning every possible input and out) of every function. That is just impossible, specially if the input is some user input. It actually doesn't test functions, but as you say, a functionality, which is way different. If you use a library, it may be broken, but just happens to work fine with your program, because it doesn't use the broken feature.

You never do that even with unit test, that is the job of a fuzzer

Oh, also, for your information, SQLite is renowned for having a coverage of 100% too (not my work tho, but th1 th2 and th3 are pretty sick tests)